Are Scientologists Insane?

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Yeah man back in the MIddle Ages and up to around the Renaissance they were selling real estate in heaven

Nope, never heard of that practice, it must have been a minor thing, if it happened at all.

they were selling indulgences too, something i heard recently restarted.

Indulgences are a commonly misunderstood practice, which were, indeed, rather abused in the Middle Ages, but have continued to exist all along. They
are related to Purgatory, and are somewhat akin to "time off for good behaviour" -- we believe that once we die, we still need to be purged of the
remnants of sin, which is what Purgatory is, and indulgences reduce the amount of purging that needs to be done. It has nothing to do with
forgiveness of sin.

So, how does one gain an indulgence? Through pious acts, including prayer, worship or charity. When I go to Stations of the Cross during Lent, for
example, I gain an indulgence. I don't commonly pray the Rosary, but indulgences are gained for that. Can they be "sold"? I suppose that it
depends on one's definition of the word -- every other month, I have a Mass offered for my wife, which costs eight dollars (which goes to pay for the
sacraments used in the Mass,) and grants her an indulgence. So I suppose that one can see it that way, though it's the Mass that grants the
indulgence, not paying for the Mass.

However, unlike the corrupt fund raising that took place in Martin Luther's time, I'm not aware of Catholic doctrine that today says I get
indulgences for donating money to the church, and even if there was, how is that any different than this:

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for
yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there
your heart will be also. (Matthew 6:19-21 NIV)

Since indulgences don't grant forgiveness of sin (or grant permission to sin,) but are only seen as helping one through Purgatory, Jesus' words
there seem entirely applicable to the concept -- be charitable and pious on Earth, and you're really helping yourself out in heaven.

This guy makes an interesting point:

Surprisingly, some of the loudest Evangelical critics of the 500 year old indulgences scandal are approaching their congregations with very
similar language to the corrupt priests of the 1500's who Martin Luther criticized. When speaking about their ministries, many Evangelical pastors
will say something like:

"Now dig deep into those pockets for this most worthwhile ministry, it will be a blessing to you and your family!"

When they say the gift will be a "blessing" to the giver, that God is looking with favour upon the offering, that the giver will be "blessed."
Although different Evangelical pastors may mean different things by the word "blessing," many would say the giver will receive blessings in all
areas of their lives including financial, health, family life etc.

It is wrong to sell spiritual things. It was wrong for corrupt priests to do it in the 1500's and it is wrong for Evangelical preachers to do now.
There is a thin line between legitimate and blasphemous teaching in the area of money. On one hand, it is perfectly legitimate to say God looks with
favour on a generous heart. (Mark 12:42) On the other hand there is a very human tendency of greed and manipulation, and sometimes motives are mixed
and not entirely without merit. (i.e., building a beautiful medieval Catholic Church or Evangelicals wanting to build a huge "Dream Center" Church)
(Source)

Well, at least on the correctness end, Catholics are likely quite a bit closer to the truth than Scientologists are. Our mythos isn't based on 1950s
aircraft carrying aliens around billions of years ago

Well, at least on the correctness end, Catholics are likely quite a bit closer to the truth than Scientologists are. Our mythos isn't based on 1950s
aircraft carrying aliens around billions of years ago

id rather follow a supposed truth of aliens from billions of years ago,, then slightly evolved ape priests from a few thousand,,,,

Purgatory isn't even remotely scriptural dude. It makes Christ's self sacrifice a lie and totally negates the need for his death at all, if you can
just go to purgatory and "work it all out" whats the point in having a Savior if you can be your own savior? That's retarded.

But, while I accept that it isn't a doctrine that is clearly spelled out, so it may not be real, I rather like the idea, because it answers one of
the fundamental complaints against Christianity -- "what happens to good people whose culture or circumstances prevent them from accepting
Christ?"

It makes Christ's self sacrifice a lie and totally negates the need for his death at all, if you can just go to purgatory and "work it all
out" whats the point in having a Savior if you can be your own savior?

No, you're not understanding the concept, it has nothing to do with salvation. The idea is that, when you die, you go to one of three places --
absolutely pious people go to heaven, the condemned go to hell, and the non-condemned go to purgatory to "serve a temporal sentence" to remove the
remnants of sin.

Think of it more as a waiting room, where you are prepared to come into God's presence, if you were not made perfect on Earth (Matthew 5:48).

Anyone who has rejected Christ and his salvation go to hell, there's no second chance, even with purgatory.

No, you're not understanding the concept, it has nothing to do with salvation. The idea is that, when you die, you go to one of three places
-- absolutely pious people go to heaven, the condemned go to hell, and the non-condemned go to purgatory to "serve a temporal sentence" to remove
the remnants of sin.

Think of it more as a waiting room, where you are prepared to come into God's presence, if you were not made perfect on Earth (Matthew 5:48).

Matthew 5:48 is being taken out of context. For one thing this was spoken even before the second covenant was laid down. The second thing, is Yeshua
is not even talking about any waiting rooms before heaven. Specifically this section of Matthew 5 is referring to loving your neighbors and your
enemies. There once was a waiting ground before he resurrected called "Abraham's Bosom" where the loyal believers in the Savior to come were sent
to rest until they could be recieved after the second covenant was established but after the second covenant there was no need for a waiting
ground.

Only the wicked will be destroyed, and Christ sets the definition for the wicked and the righteous in Matthew 28:31-46. In the parable of the sheep
and goats he also clearly outlines who his brothers and sisters are, and this is attested to in Mark 3:33-35. The wicked are the people who did
nothing for his brothers and sisters, which is the same for doing nothing for him. This is what it means to be the "Body of Christ". He is the head
but we are his "body", we are extensions of him into this world. What evil people do to us they do to him and this is also attested to by Paul in
Acts 9:1-5 when Paul had been persecuting the jews who believed in Yeshua, Yeshua responds "Saul, why do you persecute Me?". Those people who
did for us and by doing for us did for him, will have their reward, those who did nothing, will also get their reward.

Well, I'm not sure what any of that had to do with purgatory, but like I said, whatever -- it's not spelled out in scripture, I just personally
think it's a good example of God's mercy, and I have no objection for paying eight bucks every other month to honour my deceased wife.

I fell like I've walked onto the set of a local cable-TV access channel show called the Catholic Scientology Hour

.

I rather like the idea, because it answers one of the fundamental complaints against Christianity -- "what happens to good people whose
culture or circumstances prevent them from accepting Christ?"

Isn't that what the doctrine of invincible ignorance is for? You really don't go for that, do you?

Anyway, I think Mathew 5: 48 might be a bit of a stretch for a purgatorial justification.

The notion is intuitive that there would be some preparation for theophany (or, since you're Catholic, you are actually talking theosis, but the
Western church prefers to call it the Beatific Vision). Whether prep is punitive or not is another matter. Zoroastrian imagery of cleansing with fire
(in an overall program of universal salvation) sticks, but is not univerally believed.

Swedenborg, a good Lutheran, imagines something that I think goes a lot better with the idea of a personal judgment of a beloved spiritual being. In
fact (in a desperate attempt to get on-topic), what he imagines sounds a lot like being "clear."

It is a non-punitive refinement, where discernment is allowed full reign, at which point the choice is made. So, "there's no second chance," as you
say, but the first chance comes at a point where the entity being judged is fairly situated to reveal its nature. Eventually, of course, there is the
general judgment, new heaven and new earth, etc. Swedenborg's is a Chrisitian vision.

So, are the Scientologists insane? Doctrinally and ritually, they're not very confidence-inspiring. But the drive for expression of unconscious
contents is relentless. Even a huckster trying to make a buck connects with this primal idea that there is a spiritual core to people which, when
unburdened of something bound up with time and space, can say

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

Along the way, there may be glimpses of that numinous state. Religious experiences, if you will. And those glimpses are handed out... well, since
you're iinto he end of Matthew 5, the glimpses fall on the just and the unjust alike. Even in Scientology. Here's a well-known anti- film, in
which which the point is made, in the first minutes of the clip:

They have a name for it - "wins." Rational people might buy wins, if they thought Scientology was the reason why they experienced it, or that
Scientology and only Scientology could provide more of the same.

So, are the Scientologists insane? Doctrinally and ritually, they're not very confidence-inspiring.

It was created by L. Ron Hubbard, who was a known drug addict, and who actually came and and said he was going to invent a religion to get rich.
These rich actors and wealthy folk (no poor people allowed, warning signals there) give millions and millions to an institution that doesn't do a
bloody thing for anyone other than the people who control it. They do not feed the poor, visit the sick, cloth the needy, it does nothing for real
people. It's a giant leech. Theyre on par with this "ascended masters" b.s..

... give millions and millions to an institution that doesn't do a bloody thing for anyone other than the people who control it.

In which case, your answer to the topic question is no, the Scientologists who control it aren't insane. They're mercenary. I agree.

If it really is the case that the institution doesn't do anything for literally anyone, then yes, the Scientologists who give the millions and
millions must be insane. But I'm not so sure that it is the case. I think the donors do get something themselves for their money, "Wins" or
heightened experiences of some kind.

It's entirely possible that they'd get the same psychological effect by sending their money to a homeless shelter, or to foster diabetes research,
or to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. But not seeing that doesn't mean a person is insane.

Call me romantic, but I think that understanding a problem is a good first step to solving it. So what if LRH was a drug addict? He's dead. The money
comes in today because somebody sits in one of their classes, and has a peak experience, like Jason Beghe did. The pitch is that for another ten
grand, you can have another; eight grand if you're one of the first ten to sign up.

Or, hey, you don't have to have the experience, just be in the class when Jason has his.

This may or may not deserve a new thread; as a newbie I don't have enough posts to create - so moot point. I will eventually post info about my CoS
past life(s); but for now, I just wanted to mention something interesting that occurred on national television tonight.

Brian Willams interviewed Hollywood director Paul Haggis tonight on Rock Center. Paul has directed many mainstream films (Crash, Million Dollar
Baby), and was part of the upper echelon of CoS. He left the "religion" and has begun to speak out about mental and physical abuse in the
organization, and some of the evil direct actions (most recently child abuse and violation of child labor laws) that takes place within CoS. A
comment about all of the issues that exist and the few that came up in the interview would be very, very lengthy. I will limit this post to something
that happened on the show, but was not part of the actual interview.

CoS has demonstrated its paranoia and fear of discovery for a very long time; critics are harassed by phone calls, threats of injury to them or their
families, and letters from attorneys threatening civil action. There is a very large unit within the organization that deals with "external
threats" by hiring private investigators to dig up dirt, and developing specific plans to discredit, intimidate, or directly harass those that are
enemies. Many incidents have occurred, including; website hacking, anonymous postings on websites, sending forged statements or other documents in
the targets name, etc. They are very frustrated when the media releases negative stories about them, and have tried to stop those releases with court
orders, buying counter-attack ads, and using harassment (such as anonymous bomb threats to TV and radio stations, and destroying newspaper racks).
They have been searching for any method possible to stop the media reports.

Tonight, there were several specific times during the interview broadcast by NBC with Paul Haggis. I noticed that there seemed to be an unusual
amount of "freezes" of the broadcast, and I began to pay close attention to them. I replayed the show on my DVR, and counted 9 of these events that
lasted over 2-3 seconds each time, with the longest "freeze" (single frame on screen - stopped - no audio at all) at 18 seconds. This made the show
frustrating to watch, and always occurred as Haggis was replying to a question. The next section of the program had 2 "freezes" with the same
amount of time for the segment. Also, there were no glitches during commercials.

OK, my TV programming is delivered via internet based digital in high def. This type of signal delivery has many glitches, including "freezing" of
digital images, sometimes lasting so long that a hard reboot of the modem is required. So, I called three people (woke my brother-in-law up - he
already thinks I am a total wacko, so I know this didn't help!) All three watched the program. All three, once I prompted them with "notice any
unusual problems with the picture?” did remember the same glitches. One checked his DVR and we matched up on the times of occurrence. Two had
providers from different cable companies than mine, and more importantly, my nephew in Chicago watched via his antenna (direct broadcast from TV
station antenna), and could name "freezes" (although he observed not a "frame freeze", but instead described the picture as looking like it was
scrambled with no audio) that occurred at the same time as my observation.

CoS is really, really into tech and really, really rich. They have spent millions on acquiring state of the art equipment, and technicians/operators
for the equipment that tracks negative media comments, websites that are criticalOperation Clambake, and any comments
that "out" them in any form. Since my long involvment with CoS that ended over a decade ago, their knowledge and ability to monitor and respond to
"threats" has increased tenfold.

I believe that they have the ability, skills and motive to try to sabotage the media. To me, based on my past experience, this specific mainstream
broadcast seems like a test or even a planned event that CoS has developed, and may now use more extensively to sabotage information releases with
direct action.

There are already CoS spokespersons and actors denouncing Haggis and this interview. It will be interesting to see the overblown responses to the
interview that CoS will get published or broadcast - they believe that destruction of critics at any cost is a huge priority. I am going to
watch for more incidents like this, and how CoS will continue to steer response in the media.

Another scientology thread, another bag of donuts missing the hole. In short, the donut, scientology, is an organization, one trying to survive
through the attacks that all new religions get for about 100 years (look at Christianity, it took them over three centuries to settle in and a few
more centuries to have enough power to come up with profitable ways to fleece the public). They are overbearing in public, go straight for the jugular
if threatened, and take money for auditing because good auditors have to know how to do one thing: repeat a question without getting sidetracked and
wait for an answer without getting flustered. Aside from that your Aunt Millie could give you scientology drills for the cost of her morning tea.
Their problem is doing the same thing when they talk to you in public - I've had run ins with those street-scientologists who want you to "just come
in" and do a communications questionaire, and you've read about the control mechanisms they immediately put into place. Not very smart of them, at
all, at all (quoting the great Vonnegut, who should have started his own religion). And I knew one fellow who had a massive family inheritance, got
caught in the scientology net, and lost every cent which is when they kicked him out. Idiots, on both sides of that coin.

So what's the hole? Hubbard's discoveries and writings. Aside from xenu, which he must have had a bad dream about, I consider his data top notch and
some of the best human potential data in a very long time. He took eastern philosophy, westernized its language, and added in the newest findings
about how the mind works. And he put it all in books, articles, and lectures, which don't cost you your life savings to obtain and read. I wonder how
many anti-Hubbard posters have actually read any of his scientology books (that Dianetics one is very outdated, I don't know why they still push it),
or compared his writings with what else is out there to see how many people and groups copied little parts of his data and made a mint (offhand I can
think of Eckard and EST, Twitchell and eckankar, a few other more recent ones I can't recall the names of - some of them keep changing the names once
they get "caught" using someone else's information - I used to know more of them). If I recall correctly Werner Eckard hired two former scientologists
to come up with two weekends worth of intensive all-day drills, and that's what he layed out there in his "Erhard Seminar Training" (EST) without, of
course, proper credit just to show what kind of guy he was.

This post gets log, so enough for now. But bottom line, the donut without the hole is just a cheaper pastry. And no, I'm not a scientologist, although
I have played one on TV (almost smiling-ol)

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.